server_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the scope of returned status data and the default target, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, response structure, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with no wasted words. The core resource and returned status dimensions are front-loaded, and the default is appended compactly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, optional-parameter status tool, the description covers the returned data categories and default target. The main gap is lack of explicit contrast with the adjacent metrics tool, but the definition is otherwise sufficient to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema coverage is already 100% and the single node parameter is documented as a server id from list_servers. The description adds meaningful default behavior by saying the panel's own server is used when node is omitted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific resource and the status dimensions returned: CPU, memory, disks, network, GPUs and per-service usage. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling metrics tool, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical default clarifies that omitting node returns the panel's own server status, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of metrics or list_servers, leaving usage mostly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.